1 F89 ^ 




.N5A4 ; 















O c " " " -» "^ ^"^ 



,0- 




'oK 




.^' ,--•. "<^. 










** r^ 



<. 








■J' ^ 


. ^ 




* 7/y 










v-Sv* 



• .^^ 



'bV' 




v^ V ' • 








^~ v^ 







<?■ o » <5,> 



^ 



V 







v-, • ^my^^x^ , 



h vi^ - Iwfifx^ 



.^<^ vc(^-%f 



THE EUINED MILL, OR ROUND 
CHUECH OF THE NOESEMEN, 
AT NEWPOET, EHODE ISLAND, 
U.S.A., COMPAEED WITH THE 
EOUND CHUECH AT CAMBEIDGE 
AND OTHEES IN EUEOPE 



BY 



F. J. ALLEN, M.D. 



[From the Cambridge Antiquarian Society's Communications, Vol. XXII.] 



1921 



Camb. Ant. Soc. Vol. XXII 



Plate VI, p. 91 



:^l:^ 



^A 



^"^ 




The Ruined Mill, or Round Church op the Norsemen, 
Newport, Rhode Island, U.S.A. 



[From the Camhrid(je Antiquarian Socicty'a Communications, Vol. XXII.] 



e 



The Ruined Mill, or Round Church of the 
Norsemen, at Newport, Rhode Island, U.S.A., 

COMPARED with THE RoUND ChURCH AT 

Cambridge and others in Europe. 
^^ By F. J. Allen, M.D. 

Read November 24, 1919 1. 

{Names or numbers in brackets refer to the bibliography 
on page 106.) 

The city of Newport, Rhode Island, possesses a feature 
unique in the Western Hemisphere — a venerable ruin, of 
mediaeval aspect, and having the form of a Norman round 
church. It is called " the Old Mill," and is believed to be the 
building described as " my stone-built wind-mill " in the last 
will of Benedict Arnold, Governor of the Island, dated De- 
cember 24, 1677. But while there is no doubt that the building 
was used as a windmill, its construction is so unusual for a mill 
and so like that of a Scandinavian round church, that many 
observers are of opinion that it was built as a church by the 
Norsemen or Vikings (who had a colony in this part of America 
in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries), and that Governor 
Benedict Arnold merely adapted it to the purposes of a mill, 
believing it to have been built as such. 

The matter has been the subject of considerable controversy, 
and from 1838 onwards various antiquaries and architects have 
written papers p7'o and contra ; but the question is still open, and 
while many persons are quite satisfied that the building was 
never anything but a windmill of the seventeenth century, others 
think it more probable that it was primarily a church of the 
twelfth century. 

' Since this paper was read, the author has received important information 
concerning Benedict Arnold, which affects the history of the building. See 
page 99. 



92 DR F. J. ALLEN 

The expression " my stone-built wind-mill," in the will of 
Benedict Arnold, does not favour either side of the controversy : 
it is the simplest possible description of the building, and would 
apply equally to a mill built by himself or to one built by any- 
one else. 

Before entering on the discussion of the question, I may 
mention that about the year 1840 a skeleton in armour, supposed 
to be the body of one of the Vikings, was found buried at 
Fall River, on the mainland close to Rhode Island ; and that 
Longfellow wrote a ballad on the event, describing the building 
at Newport as the warrior's tower. 

I visited Rhode Island in 1880, and made notes and careful 
drawings of the Old Mill. The building left a deep impression 
on my mind, so that I have ever since been on the alert for any 
information or observation that might help to elucidate its 
origin. In the course of investigation I have noted certain points 
which seem to me important, but which are not mentioned by 
any of the writers whose works are within my reach ; and it is 
because of these additional evidences, and because of certain 
resemblances between the ruin in question and the Round 
Church at Cambridge, that I think it not inappropriate to lay 
the subject before this Society. 

Rhode Island, alias Aquidneck, is a little larger tlian Jersey, 
and is situated in the inlet known as Narraganset Bay on the 
south coast of New England, about 60 miles south of Boston 
and 160 miles east-north-east of Ncav York. The island is 
separated from the mainland by a channel which is oniy about 
one mile wide at the narrowest. Rhode Island gives its name to 
the smallest of the States, of which it forms a part. Newport, 
on the west coast of the island, is its largest town, and had in 
the early daj^s of the New England colony a considerable trade 
as a seaport : but in recent times it has developed into a very 
luxurious watering pUce, a garden city by the sea ; and in one 
of its public parks the Ruined Mill stands picturesquely among 
the trees. 

The photograph, Plate VI, shows the ruin to be of the 
shape of the central portion of a twelfth century round church, 

mn 

* MAS 13 1922 



THE RUIN AT NEWPORT, R.I. 



93 



from which the surrounding aile or ambulatory has been re- 
moved. It consists of eight round columns with semi-circular 
arches, supporting an upper storey which is quite plain and is 
remarkable for the barbaric paucity of its windows. 

When I visited the building I was struck with two of its 
characters, firstly its similarity in form and dimensions to the 
Round Church at Cambridge, and secondly the skill with which 
the builders, using only unhewn stones, had managed to imitate 
the contour of the Norman column, its shaft, base and capital. 





if^^ 



l^^^h^-i 



NORTH AISLE ; 



■Vestry'. 
""f. \ I NAVE ) pl-t \ CHANCEL 



SOUTH AISLE 




^^ v^^ 



Fig. 1. Plan of the Round Chinch of the Holy Sepulchre, Cambridge. 

Reduced from Atkinson and Clark's Cambridge Described and Illustrated, by 

permission of Messrs Macmillan and Co., and Messrs Bowes and Bowes. 

The above fig. 1 shows the plan of the Round Church of the 
Holy Sepulchre at Cambridge. It will be seen that the circle of 
eight columns in the plan would answer for either of the two 
buildings under consideration, but the outer circular wall 
enclosing the ambulatory does not at present exist at the New- 
port ruin : whether it formerly existed is a matter for investiga- 
tion. The chancel at Cambridge is a late addition, replacing a 
smaller early chancel. Careful digging around the Newport 



Cambridge 


26 ft. 


6 iu. 


19 „ 


6 „ 


3 „ 


6 „ 


8 „ 


5 „ 


11 „ 


„ 


about 30 „ 


„ 



94 t)R F. J. ALLEN 

building might reveal the foundations of a former ambulatory 
or chancel. 

The dimensions of the Newport ruin are remarkably similar 
to those of our Cambridge church, as the following figures will 

show : 

Newport 
Diameter of central building, 
excluding ambulatory : 

external *23 ft. in. 

internal +18 „ 4 „ 

Diameter of columns ... * 3 „ 2 „ 

Height of columns ... f 8 „ 8 „ 

„ „ arches ... ... +11 „ 2 „ 

Entire height of building +26 „ „ 

The figures marked * are from R. G. Hatfield (5) ; those marked + are 
from G. C. Mason (6). See bibliography on page 106. 

Too much importance must not be attached to this similarity 
of dimensions. At most it can only mean that such dimensions 
were convenient, and might be used in many churches. 

The view of the interior of the Round Church at Cambridge, 
Plate VII, shows some points in which the two buildings 
may have resembled or differed from each other. The chief 
difference is that the Cambridge church follows the English 
custom, being open from floor to vault, with trifurium and 
clerestory, while the Newport building (if a church) followed the 
Scandinavian custom, being divided by floors into three storeys. 

Some idea of the date of the Newport ruin may be obtained 
from the study of its masonry, of which the following description 
is extracted from the notes which I made on the spot, while the 
illustrations in Plates VIII and IX are reproduced from the 
drawings which I made at the same time. I regret that the 
shortness of my visit prevented me from making a more com- 
plete series of drawings. 

The masonry is extremely rude. I could find in it no hewn 
stones, though some appeared to have been roughly chipped oi- 
broken. The stones were probably picked up from the sea beach, 
where similar ones were (in 1880) still lying in abundance. The 
stones used vary much in size, and are generally selected 
judiciously so as to produce the form required, whether plain 



Camb. Ant. Soc. Vol. XXII 



Plate VII, p. 94 




Round Church op the Holy Sepulchre, Cambridge. 
(Photograph by F. J. Allen.) 



Camb. Ant. Soc. Vol. XXII 



Plate VIII, p. 95 



tf 




?%^\ lb \ • V ■ 




mm 




a 


0) 




'$ 






o 








3 




CO 


o 


g 


- 


^ 


,o 


a 






a 


=« 


'ce 


3 


o 


o 






p< 


"o 


6C 




u 


C 


Ol 






> 


03 


& 


M 


o 




o 




13 


;h 


a 


a 




o 


oj 


a 










-*j 


O 


o 


6 


O 




Pu 


js 


a 


'B' 







1~77' 




THE RUIN AT NEWPORT, RJ. 95 

wall, arch, base, capital, sill, or lintel. The rude imposts and 
bases are in most cases each formed of a single large stone. The 
greater part of the building seems to have been at first covered 
with plaster, of which many traces still remain, especially some 
large patches on the inner sides of the columns : it is merely 
mortar, and not laid on very evenly. The north-east window, and 
one or two holes or recesses on the interior surface, have been 
stopped up with red brick since they were built. 

Fig. A, on Plate VIII, is the outline of a column seen 
laterally, with a few of the chief details of masonry sketched in. 
Note the Norman form of the base and of the abacus or inner 
impost. There is a curious outer impost at a lower level, which 
seems obviously intended to support the roof-timbers of the 
ambulatory. Immediately above the outer impost the wall is 
recessed or slanted inwards, so as to bring the ends of these 
timbers nearer to the axis of the column than they would be 
with an upright wall. The slant is shown in the same illustra- 
tion (A, on Plate VIII) where it looks like incorrect drawing; 
but its truth may be confirmed by comparison with the photo- 
graph, Plate VI. 

The arches are very rudely constructed, the builder being 
evidently ignorant of the elementary rule, that all the arch- 
stones must point to the centre from which the arch is struck. 
On inspecting the arches, or lower portions of arches, in 
Plates VI, VIII, and IX, it will be seen that the arch-stones 
do not point to the centre of the arch, the lowest stones being 
placed too upright. This increases the outward thrust of the 
arch and causes weakness. 

Immediately above each inner impost a triangular hole is 
left between the lowest stones of the two adjacent arches, as 
shown in B, Plate VIII. These holes seem to have received the 
ends of timbers which formed parts of a framework supporting 
the floor. But the floor itself must be supposed to have been 
above the tops of the arches, and therefore about 3 ft. above the 
holes. As the floor had a span of over 18 ft., a strong frame- 
work may have been required to support it ; and an additional 
support, in the form of a central column of stone or wood, may 
have existed formerly. 



96 DB F. J. ALLEN 

It is most necessary to realize that these triangular holes are 
a very abnormal feature. Each of them constitutes a weak spot 
at a point where the stress is greatest ; and the weakness is 
intensified by the thinning of the wall on the outer side at the 
same point, as shown in A, Plate VIII. The weak spot, occur- 
ring at each of the ei^ht points of greatest stress, must tend 
to make the building as a whole unstable and liable to collapse 
under a strain. 

The fireplace, shown in the same drawing, Plate VIII, B, is 
above the middle of a column on the east side of the building. 
It has a good hearth-stone, and an arch which is approximately 
segmental. Some peculiarities in its structure will be described 
later on. I regret that while trying to represent each stone of 
the masonry correctly, I happened to get one stone too many in 
each jamb of the fireplace, and there was not time to make 
another drawing : one of the least characteristic stones on each 
side must therefore be discounted. Also in my hurry I drew the 
fireplace and the arch below, as if seen from two different levels, 
and therefore not in the same perspective. With these reserva- 
tions, I believe all the drawings here given are fair representa- 
tions of the masonry, as may be seen by comparing them with 
the photograph, Plate VI. 

Plate IX, A, shows the outer aspect of one of the columns, 
with a window in its relative position, not exactly above the 
middle of the column. In the column the irregular masonry is 
outlined, also the broad flat stone which forms the outer impost. 

There are three windows, all of them small : two are placed 
unsyrametrically to the arches, as in the instance just men- 
tioned; the third is over the middle of a north-eastern arch. 
The windows are nearly square, about 2 ft. wide, splayed both 
ways, but chiefly outwards. They are topped with a single stone 
for a lintel, and only one of them (between the west and south- 
west arches) has a discharging arch, which is very inadequate or 
even nugatory (see Plate IX, B). In fact these windows are 
barbaric not only for their paucity, but also for their small size 
and rude construction. They resemble the windows in ancient 
Celtic and Anglo-Saxon buildings ; for comparison I give an 
illustration, Plate IX, C, after Petric's Ecclesiastical Archi- 



Camb. Ant. Soc. Vol. XXII 
A 



Plate IX, p. 96 
B 







A. The Ellin at Newport, R.I. Outer view of a column, showing outer impost, 

spring of two arches, and a window in relative position. 

B. The Ruin at Newport, E.I. South-west window. 

The arrows in A and B point to middle of respective columns. 

C. Window in Ancient Oratory, Kilmalkedar, County Kerry. 



THE RUIN AT NEWPORT, R.I, 97 

lecture of Ireland, (13) of a double-splayed window, built without 
cement, in the ancient oratory at Kilmalkedar, County Kerry. 
Such windows are suited rather for a wooden shutter than for 
glazing. 

In addition to the features already mentioned, there are some 
square recesses, about eight in number, on the inner face of the 
wall : these may have supported the ends of timbers. 

My drawings and notes were made only from the groimd 
level. For want of a ladder and other apparatus, I was unable to 
make a thorough examination of the building. But several 
additional details are described in a paper by G. C. Mason, 
architect, published in the Magazine of American History for 
1879 (6). The following are some of his most important points. 
He finds : 

(a) That the fireplace is quite certainly a part of the 
original building, not a later insertion as some have assumed. 
Its structure is peculiar : internally it has a fiat roof, one foot 
above the crown of the arch ; at each end is a fine 5 in. by 8 in. 
The north flue runs up nearly vertical, while the other flue 
curves off easily to the south for some distance and then turns 
upwards with an inclination still to the south. Both flues open 
out on the face of the wall about 10 in. below the top, and 
they are each topped with a large projecting stone, evidently to 
protect the wooden plate of the roof. The flues are of a full and 
even area throughout. 

(6) That there were two floors, one just above the arches, 
the other at 20 ft. 2 in. from the ground. A flight of stairs led 
from the lower to the upper floor, as indicated by holes left to 
receive the ends of treads... to the north of the fireplace. There 
is a slight set-back of the wall for the upper floor. 

(c) That the window-sills are formed of two flat stones, 
having an interval of four inches between them to receive the 
wooden window-sill, the ends of which fitted into mortises in the 
jambs. The edges of the stones next the intervals are square cut. 

{d) That the eight columns are on true cardinal points. 

As to the materials of which the ruin is composed, Mr Mason 
says : 



98 DR F. J. ALLEN 

(e) That the stone used is laminated shite, mixed with 
gneiss of hical occurrence. 

(/) That specimens of mortar taken from the " Old Mill," 
and likewise from certain buildings constructed in the days of 
Benedict Arnold, have been analyzed and found to be of the 
same quality, and composed of shell-lime, sand, and gravel, with 
flakes of broken slate pounded fine. 

(<7) That when Governor Arnold's house (with which the 
"Old Mill," if built by Ai-riold, would be contemporary) was 
pulled down, the mortar was found to be extremely tenacious. 

But on the other hand I must point out that the mortar of 
the " Old Mill " is very much perished : it has scaled off the 
surfjxce and washed out of the joints. This looks as if the mortar 
of the ruin were either f)f inferior (juality or of greater age. The 
similarity of composition in the mortars of different ages may be 
accounted for by the builders in both cases using the materials 
which were immediately at hand. 

The building then, from its structural characters, might 
possibly have been built by the Norsemen. But how and when 
did the Norsemen come to Rhode Island ? 

It is well known that they sailed from Iceland to Greenland. 
In the Sagas it is related (Rafn, 1 and 2, Palfrey, 4) that in the 
year 986 a mariner named Bjarne was driven by contrary winds 
so far west that he sighted a new land. In 1000 a mariner Leif 
landed, and then sailed further south till he came to a part which 
he named Vinland (the Land of Vines) because he found grapes 

growing wild in the woods This is believed to have been 

the coast now known as New England — Massachusetts, Rhode 
Island, and Connecticut'. 

Other voyages were made to the same part, and a small 
colony was established. In 1121 Eric, Bishop of Greenland, 
arrived in Vinland, where he hoped to Christianize the in- 
habitants, and it is supposed that he fixed his abode there. It 
is to him that the building of the Round Church on Rhode 

1 Those who know the country will recognise the appropriateness of the 
name Vinland, for there grape-vines grow wild, as bryony docs in northern 
Europe. F. J. A. 



THE RUIN AT NEWPORT, R.I. 99 

Island is attributed, and it is significant that the date of his 
arrival, 1121, was about the time when our Cambridge Round 
Church and many others in Europe were built. 

The Norsemen built churches even in Greenland, of which 
Prof. Rafn gives Illustrations in his Antiquitates Americanae, 
1845 (2). If in Greenland, why not a fortiori in Vinland ? And 
Rhode Island would be the most suitable spot for a sanctuary, 
because it was protected by a channel of water from the raids 
of the Indians. Nevertheless it seems that the little colony 
could not sufficiently defend itself against these enemies, and 
after about two centuries the residue of the colonists returned 
to Iceland. 

If the circumstantial evidence had been limited to what I 
have hitherto related, there would have been little apparent 
reason to doubt that the Rhode Island ruin was of Norse origin. 
But the track of the evidence was crossed by a f;ilse scent, which 
divided the issue and caused most of the controversy. It happened 
thus : Governor Benedict Arnold, who called the building " my 
stone-built wind-mill," had a farm at Newport which he described 
as " my Lemmington farm." This was supposed to be named 
after Leamington in Warwickshire, and it was inferred — incor- 
rectly, as will presently be shown, — that Arnold was a Warwick- 
shire man. If Leamington in Warwickshir-e had been Arnold's 
early homo, he would probably have seen the extraordinary 
windmill which was built in 16:52 at Chesterton, five miles from 
Leamington, by Sir Edward Peyto, the architect being no less 
than Inigo Jones. For the photograph of this windmill, shown 
on Plate X, I am indebted to my friend Mr F. T. S. Houghton 
of Birmingham. It was supposed that Arnold had been vividly 
impressed with this Avindmill in his native county, and had 
tried to imitate it in building the windmill on his colonial farm. 

But more recently it has been discovered that Arnold was 
not a Warwickshire man. A record of the Arnold family was 
kept by several members thereof from 1553 to 177G. A copy of 
it was found in possession of a descendant, and was published 
in full in 1879 (15). Mr F. A. Arnold, of Providence, Rhode 
Island, who is also a descendant, has very kindly sent me full 
information concerning this record, from which it appears that 



100 DR F. J. ALLEN 

Benedict Arnold was a son of William Arnold of Ilchester, 
Somerset, where he was born on the 21st of December, 1615. 
Together with his parents and other members of the family, 
and some friends, he sailed from Dartmouth on the 1st of May, 
1685, and arrived at Massachusetts Bay on the 24th of June. 
There is no reason to suppose that Benedict had seen the 
Chesterton windmill, which was more than a hundred miles 
from Ilchester. The " Lemmington farm" at Newport was pro- 
bably named after Limington, a village adjoining Ilchester. 

Thus, even if we assume that Benedict Arnold built the 
Newport mill, it is improbable that he imitated the Chesterton 
one. But as he might possibl}^ have employed a mason who 
was acquainted with the Chesterton mill, let us see how far the 
two buildings resemble or differ from each other. Inigo Jones's 
mill stands on six arches, the columns are quadrangular, the 
bases, imposts, and arch-mouldings are entirely of Italian form. 
On the other hand the Newport " Old Mill " stands on eight 
arches, the columns are round, and the elementary bases and 
imposts are as nearly like Norman or Romanesque forms as 
they can be when formed of unhewn stone. Then the Chesterton 
mill is a much more solid building : a windmill has to bear great 
wind-pressure combined with excessive vibration, and Inigo 
Jones provided against these. His columns and arches are very 
thick, and the masonry is of asJilar, i.e. squared stones. But the 
columns at Newport are comparatively thin and tall, the arches 
are wrongly constructed, and the whole masonry is of tmcoursed 
rubble. The strength of uncoursed rubble is the strength of its 
mortar; and before the mortar is set hard, such masonry will 
collapse under moderate stress. I should estimate that mass for 
mass the stability of ashlar would be about four times as great 
as that of uncoursed rubble. 

Further, I must refer again to the weakness caused by the 
thinning of the wall, and the presence of a great hole, at each 
of those points in the Newport building where the strain is 
greatest, namely at the spring of the arches from the columns. 
In short, I should expect such a building to be shaken to 
pieces if used as a windmill within ten years of its erection : 
I should even hesitate to design a building of that shape and 



Camb. Ant. Soc. Vol. XXII Plate X, p. 100 







The Windmill at Chesterton, Warwickshire. 
{Photograph by F. T. S. Houghton.) 



THE RUIN AT NEWPORT, R.I. 



101 



material, without buttresses to bear the outward thrust of the 
arches. 

Let us next consider the characteristic features of round 
churches on the one hand, and of windmills on the other, so as 
to find in what respects the Newport ruin resembles either of 
them. 

Round churches had been built occasionally from very early 




Fig. 2. Round church, Oles-Kirke, Boinholm, section west to east. 

Reduced from Architecture of the Churches of Denmark, by Major A. Heales, 
published by Messrs Kegan Paul and Co. 

times ; but a considerable number of those in North Europe 
were built under the influence of men who had fought in the 
Crusades and had seen the Round Church of the Holy Sepulchre 
at Jerusalem. Beyond the feature of roundness the northern 
churches do not follow the design of that in Jerusalem, but 
show many different forms, some extremely simple, others 
elaborate. 

In England there are four Round Churches still in use. Sir 



102 



DR F, J. ALLEN 



William St John Hope (11) investigated (mostly by excavating 
the foundations) the remains of six others, and found docu- 
mentary evidence of the existence of a seventh, making eleven 
known to have existed, and there may have been more. There 
are six in North Germany, and one in Holland. In Scandinavia 
they are rather numerous : Jutland has one, Zealand two, Flinen 




Fig. 3. Round church, Thorsager, Jutland. 

Reduced from H. Marryat's Jutland and thfi Danish Isles, by permission 

of Mr John Murray. 

one, and Bornhoim four. Eight or more are said to exist in 
Sweden. (Fergusson, 14.) 

Some round churches are encircled with an aile or "ambu- 
latory," others have none. In England the churches with an 
ambulatory have their inner circle supported on eight or siw 
columns with arches; those without an ambulatory have no 



THE EUIN AT NEWPORT, R.I. 103 

columns. In Scandinavia the churches vvith an ambulatory 
have eight or six columns ; some of the churches without an 
ambulatory have one central colunni to support the vault and 
the upper floors, as at Oles-Kirke, Bornholm (Fig. 2). Inter- 
mediate in form between the churches with an ambulatory and 
those without, are certain churches with four columns, a peculiar 
arrangement of vaulting, and square upper floors and clerestory, 
as at Thorsager, Jutland (Fig. 3). In most cases the Scandinavian 
churches have two upper floors (Fig. 2), occasionally three (Fig. 3), 
forming upper chambers the use of which is not certainly known. 
These chambers probably held the treasures of the church, — the 
silver, relics, documents, etc., and afforded lodging for a priest 
or a custodian ; but certain features in their structure make it 
probable that they were also use-d as places of refuge in times 
of danger from enemies. Similar habitable chambers existed in 
many, perhaps most, of the Anglo-Saxon towers of England : 
they may be seen in our own Anglo-Saxon tower of St Benet's, 
also at Brixworth, Barnack, Barton-on-Humber, Deerhurst, and 
other churches ; and they are occasionally met with in churches 
later than the Anglo-Saxon. In the tower of Irthlingborough 
church, of the fourteenth centuiy, the rooms were provided with 
fireplaces. (Micklethwaite, 12.) I believe there is no record of 
the former presence or absence of upper chambers in English 
round churches : the four round churches still in use retain no 
evidence of such chambers. 

The great majority of windmills; whether of stone, brick, or 
wood, are built of a conical shape for the sake of stability, the 
base being sometimes twice or thrice as wide as the top. The 
early wooden mills, which were turned bodily to face the wind, 
instead of having a revolving roof, could not be conical; but 
their wooden frames were so contrived as to bear the strain of 
wind-pressure and vibration better than a stone or brick 
structure. 

A mill requires three storeys. The middle storey is occupied 
by the stones and other machinery : the mill is fed from the top 
storey, and discharges into the lowest. 

It will be seen that the Newport ruin resembles the round 
churches in all essentials. It ditters from all windmills, except 



104 DR F. J. ALLEN 

that at Chesterton, in standing on columns and arches'. In pos- 
sessing two upper storeys it resembles equally a Scandinavian 
round church or a windmill. To fit it for a windmill the lowest 
storey must have been enclosed within walls. If an ambulatory 
formerly existed, it was probably destroyed before the building 
was used as a mill, and wooden walls were probably constructed 
inside the circle of arches, as at the Chesterton mill. 

The windows are not of the round-headed form that we should 
expect in a church built by the Norsemen in the twelfth century, 
neither are they characteristic of the seventeenth century. Plain 
square openings are found not only in early Celtic buildings 
(Plate IX, C) but occasionally in rough buildings of almost any 
period. Nevertheless, the double splay, a device for obtaining 
the most light through the smallest opening, is generally re- 
garded as a mark of antiquity. In England it was not used after 
the Norman invasion. The builder of the " Old Mill" at Newport 
(whether in the twelfth or the seventeenth century) was not 
skilled in the construction of arches, and may have been glad to 
avail himself of the flat stones from the sea-shore to make 
lintels for his windows. Such window openings, closed with 
wooden shutters, might sufiiice for a priest's dwelling in the 
twelfth century ; but we should expect to find more and larger 
windows in a windmill built in the seventeenth century, when 
glass was abundant, and when houses in the colony were being 
built with large windows as in England. 

Lastly we must consider the fireplace, which Mr Mason re- 
garded as certainly a part of the original building. A fireplace 
is appropriate for a priest's dwelling, but is hardly admissible in 
<i mill; for the dust of a mill is inflammable, and mills have been 
burnt or blown up through someone taking a light into them 
during work : even a winnowing machine has been known to 
explode in the same way. And if it be urged that the fireplace 
was for the dwelling room, not the work room, the answer is 
that a mill is too dusty to be dwelt in. The uninhabitability of 
a windmill did not escape the notice of Shakespeare : in King 

1 I have seen a photograph of a windmill in Antigua, West Indies, with 
arches in its lowest storey; but the mill is modern, of conical form, and the 
masonry between the arches is massive. 



THE RUIN AT NEWPORT, R.I, 105 

Henry I V, Fart I, Act III, Scene i, Hotspur (referring to Owen 
Glendower) says : 

I'd rather live 
With cheese and garlic in a windmill, far, 
Than feed on cates, and have him talk to me, 
In any summer-house in Christendom. 

The only circumstantial evidence in favour of the mill having 
been built by Arnold, was his supposed origin from Warwickshire 
and acquaintance with the Chesterton mill; but this has been an- 
nulled by the discovery that his home was more than a hundred 
miles away. There is no other mill from which he could have 
imitated it, for no other is built on columns. If it were definitely 
proved that Arnold built the mill, it would raise the problem, 
Why did he build a windmill in the seventeenth century on the 
model of a Scandinavian church of the twelfth century '. If 
built by Arnold, the building is a mystery: if built by Bishop 
Eric, its every feature is accounted for. 

The slight resemblance between the Newport ruin and the 
Chesterton mill may be accidental. The Newport mason may 
have attempted, with more ingenuity than technical skill, to 
imitate the round churches he had seen far away in North 
Europe ; whereas Inigo Jones in building the Chesterton mill 
may have imitated (perhaps unconsciously) the round churches 
he had seen in Italy 

For my part, I am impressed with the similarity of the New- 
port building, in all essential features, to the Scandinavian round 
churches, and its inappropriateness for a windmill. Such a build- 
ing would probably be shaken to pieces if used as a windmill 
when new ; but it would become safe when the mortar became 
consolidated by age especially if the interval were, as possibly 
in this instance, five hundred years. 

Nevertheless I consider the evidence indecisive on either side. 
The matter needs to be re-investigated bysomeonewho is equally 
acquainted with the building itself, with the round churches of 
Europe, with the windmill at Chesterton, and with mills in 
general and their requirements: and the first step in the investi- 
gation should be to excavate the ground immediately around 
the ruin, in search of any remaining foundations of portions of 
the building that may have been destroyed. 



106 DR F. J. ALLEN 

In such excavation the investigator should be guided by the 
work of Sir William St John Hope, who made important dis- 
coveries by excavating the foundations of English round churches 
(11). It is a matter for regret that Sir William, as he told me, 
never visited the Old Mill at Newport: his opinion on the build- 
ing would have been of the greatest possible value. 

I am indebted ti^ Mr Clarence S. Brigham, Librarian of the 
American Antiquarian Society, and to Mr Howard M. Chapin, 
Librarian of the Rhode Island Historical Society, for valuable 
information concerning the Ruined Mill and the literature re- 
lating to it : also to Mr F. A. Arnold, of Providence, R.I., for 
very important information from the Arnold family record. My 
thanks are due to Messrs Macmillan and Co. and Messrs Bowes 
and Bowes for permission to use Fig. 1, and to Mr John Murray 
for permission to use Fig. 3. Further, I have had the privilege 
of examining a large number of photographs of windmills, 
English and foreign, belonging to the late Mr H. M. J. Underbill 
of Oxford, and mostly taken by himself in the course of a 
careful study which he made of their structure. 

Bibliography 

(1) Rafn, K. Ch., "La Decouverte de I'Amdrique an dixi^me sifecle." 
Mrmoires de la Societe Royale des Antiquaires du Nord, 1836-39, 
Copenhagen. 

(2) Rafn, K. Ch., Antiquitates Amet-icanae, Copenhagen, 1841, 1845. 

(3) Bbooks, C. T., Co'iitroversy touching the Old Stone Mill, Newport, 
1851. (Based on the eiToneous supposition that Arnold was a 
Warwickshire man.) 

(4) Palfrey, J. G., Histori/ of JVeiv England, Vol. i, p. 53. Boston, 1858. 
(May be consulted on the history of the Viking colony, but follows 
the error of C. T. Brooks (3) regarding Arnold.) , 

(5) Hatfield, R. G., "The Old Mill at Newport," in Scrihner's Monthly, 
Vol. XVII, p. 632. 

(6) Mason, G. C, Article in Magazine of American History, Vol. in, 
p. 541. 

(7) Tavenor-Peury, J., "The Scandinavian Tower of Newport, Rhode 
Island, U.S.A.," in the Antiquary, December, 1913. 

(8) Marryat, H., Jutland and the Danish Isles, publisheii by John 
Murray. 



THE RUIN AT NEWl'OKT, R.I. 107 

(9) Heales, Major A., The xirchitecture of the Churches of Denmark, 
published by Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner & Co. 

(10) Heales, Major A., IVie Ecclesioloyy of Gottland, and the Churches of 
Bornholm, published by Roworth k Co., London. 

(11) Hope, Sir W. St John, " Round-naved Churches in England, and 
their Connexion with the Orders of the Temple and of the Hospital of 
St John of Jerusalem," in Archceologia Cantiana, Vol. xx.xiii, p. 63. 

(12) MiCKLETHVVAiTE, J. T., "Something about Sa.xon Church Building," 
in Archceological Journal, Vol. Liii, pp. 336 — 7 and 346—51. 

(13) Petrie, G., Ecclesiastical Architectxire of Ireland, pp. 185, 401 — 2. 
Dublin, 1845. 

(14) Fergusson, J., History of Architecture, 2nd and 3rd editions, pub- 
lished by John Murray. 

(15) "The Arnold Family Record," in Nev^ England Historical and 
Genealogical Register, Vol. xxxiii, Oct. 1879. 

(16) Bennett, R., and Elton, J., History of Corn Milling, Vol. ii, 
pp. 293 -300. Sinipkin, Marshall & Co. 



» 18 









0^ 















^;> 



o > 






,0- 



'\^ 






O ^1 















U' 



c>. 






























DOBBS BROS. 

LIBRARY BINDING 



'■ -'^ 



J^^. 



,V ^'^^ 



1^ * o 



:/ ^^^^2084 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 075 700 7 



